[blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention"

[Eric Landau]

On Sep 27, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote:

> On 9/27/07, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
>>
>> TFLB does not define "natural";
>
> Right; though TFLB uses "natural" once, undefined, in a footnote.
>
>> neither, AFAIK, has any other
>> authority of record.  The ACBL does use "natural" as a synonym for
>> "not conventional" and so do virtually all of its members.
>> I would imagine many non-ACBLers do the same.
>
> Eric, where does the ACBL do this?

I'm not sure they've officially "done" anything; I think Steve was  
referring to the general discourse.  But if there is any recognized  
difference between "natural" and "not conventional" there's no  
indication that, for example, the authors of "Ruling  the Game" or  
"Conventional Wisdom" (both regular columns in "The Bridge Bulletin",  
the official publication of the ACBL) are aware of it.

>> The historical distinction between "not conventional" and "natural"
>> goes back to an old proposal by Edgar Kaplan,  who suggested that the
>> law recognize three types of calls: "conventions", "natural calls",
>> which suggested play but contained no additional information by
>> agreement, and "treatments", which included calls which gave specific
>> information about strength or were forcing.  This never became law
>> however; its only residue in TFLB is the second sentence of the
>> definition of "convention", which tells us that (most of) what Kaplan
>> called "treatments" are not conventions.
>>
>> As far as the Law is concerned, only the difference between
>> "conventional" and "not conventional" matters; if "natural" were
>> indeed to be defined as some third thing it would make no difference
>> to TFLB, and should make no difference to us.  IMO BLML would be  
>> well-
>> served to accept the ACBL's usage.
>
> Yes, as far as TFLB is concerned, natural can be left undefined.  But
> as far as the law that we play under in the ACBL is concerned, the
> meaning of natural is important:  My conventional defense is allowed
> (under GCC) against conventional calls, and we all three suspect that
> any non-natural bid is conventional.

I'd have said we all suspect/believe that any non-conventional bid is  
natural.  Means the same, but connotes differently,  as Jerry's 3H  
example (below) suggests.

> If so, then my conventional
> defense is allowed against non-natural bids.  But if a director rules
> that a bid I thought was non-natural is actually natural and also not
> conventional, that makes my defense illegal.  You see that the
> definition of natural really matters to me when I play under ACBL law.

I don't see that.  You may use your conventional defenses against the  
opponent's conventional calls, so it certainly matters if you think  
an opponent's call is "conventional" and the director thinks it is  
"not conventional".  But using the words "non-natural" and "actually  
natural and also not conventional" instead shouldn't affect what  
defenses you may in fact use, unless the director is very, very  
confused.

> As for BLML usage, the ACBL's definition of natural is not perfect.

As I said above, I am not aware that they actually have any official  
definition of "natural".  If they do, I don't see us answering  
Jerry's questions or concerns until we know what it is.  If anyone  
(Jerry?) is aware of it, could they post it?

> For example, assuming no competition, 1S - 1N (forcing) - 2C - 2N - 3H
> could well show 5314 shape.  But in the ACBL's definition, 3H was not
> natural, because here it only shows three cards.

Nonsense.  They should expect five cards in your third-best suit?  Of  
course 3H is natural, and if the rumored ACBL definition of "natural"  
would have it otherwise then that definition is too flawed for  
practical use.

> (Recall that natural
> major-suit bids in the ACBL must show four in the suit.  Natural
> minors show three---which is more in step with TFLB's definition of
> convention with its phrase "three cards or more.")

We do need that definition!  Although I do recall something about  
*opening* bids being defined as conventional if permitted on fewer  
than four in a major or three in a minor -- which is perfectly  
reasonable, but not germane.

> Also, the ACBL's definition is not complete, because it only defines
> natural bids.

That should be all it needs to do, just as TFLB need only define  
"conventional" ones; defining something perforce defines its  
complement.  Could the distinction Jerry is making be not so much  
about the difference between the terms "conventional/non- 
conventional" and "non-natural/natural" as the difference between  
where the ACBL and others choose to draw the line?  It wouldn't be  
the first case of obscuring an outright contradiction by introducing  
a less contradictory-sounding word; politicians do it every day.

> I suspect that the ACBL usage may be that a bid can be natural and
> conventional at the same time, such as or 2H showing both majors,

There is no way that ACBL -- or any other sensible -- usage would  
call that "natural".  We've met and rejected the canard that just  
because a bid may systemically be  passed it is natural.

> or
> 4S in 1S - 2N (forcing raise) - 4S (weak, no singleton) .

That is (surely) conventional by virtue of its being a response to a  
conventional asking bid (as well as, arguably, by its guarantee of 2 
+H/D/C) .  It may coincidentally sound natural, but is no more so  
than would be 5S if the auction were to continue -4NT-5S.

> My *guess*
> is that the point of the ACBL's definition is to give an easy way to
> classify many bids as conventional (assuming that "non-natural" is
> sufficient but not necessary for "conventional") and also to ban
> partnership agreements that allow 1-level three-card major responses
> that are not game forcing.

Well, yes, the ACBL does  have a track record of taking whatever  
liberties with TFLB and the dictionary it needs to in order to  
prevent its members from playing any agreement whatsoever that is out  
of favor with its governing Board, so Jerry may well be dead right  
here.  We'll know when we see this rumored definition.

Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net